White South African farmers will be removed from their land after a landslide vote in parliament. The country’s constitution is now likely to be amended to allow for the confiscation of white-owned land without compensation, following a motion brought by radical Marxist opposition leader Julius Malema.

It passed by 241 votes for to 83 against after a vote on Tuesday, and the policy was a key factor in new president Cyril Ramaphosa’s platform after he took over from Jacob Zuma in February.

Mr Malema said the time for ‘reconciliation is over’. ‘Now is the time for justice,’ News24 reported. ‘We must ensure that we restore the dignity of our people without compensating the criminals who stole our land.’

Mr Malema has a long-standing commitment to land confiscation without compensation. In 2016 he told his supporters he was ‘not calling for the slaughter of white people – at least for now‘.

This is precisely why the concept of open borders is as destructive as communism; no, immigration and open borders didn’t cause this outcome in South Africa. But people who live in a country have a right to decide who is let in, and allowed to vote, for precisely this reason. Today’s immigrants are tomorrows residents and the next day’s citizens. As long as there is democracy and majority-vote rule, anyone who enters your political jurisdiction is a potential invader no different than the German soldier participating in Operation Barbarossa. We haven’t even begun to touch the issue of the franchise for people who are natives.

Democracy + open borders = legalized conquest.

Vox Day offered this scenario a while ago, but under open borders a nation can completely destroy another without ever invading it; all it need do is send immigrants over there to overwhelm the native population and through the democratic process vote away their customs, traditions, culture, and laws until it resembles that of their native land.

No doubt the open border, “color-blind” lolbertarians will completely ignore the plight of the Boers in South Africa and evade, evade, evade the issue of what to do when a similar situation occurs here in the USA – it is exactly why when the moment of truth comes, they should be afforded zero aid, comfort, or assistance by those who right now have the moral courage to call out what is happening for what it is. Let them sleep in the bed they made.

In a time of crisis, a good litmus test for anyone you want in your “tribe” are those who acknowledged the problem before it actually happened, not after. Their stance on immigration and borders is by no means the sole criteria, but its a damn good start.

I don’t want the government running the national parks, either, and if the option to privatize them becomes possible, I’m all for it. But as long as they’re doing it on my dime, I want them to keep them clean, maintained, and not permit meth dealers to cook meth in RVs.

Not sure what the correlation between South Africa and immigrants is here? You say this isn’t a result of immigration and then say the open border color blind “lolbertarians” will ignore the plight of the Boers.
So, does South Africa have anything to do with open border immigration or not?

no, immigration and open borders didn’t cause this outcome in South Africa. But people who live in a country have a right to decide who is let in, and allowed to vote, for precisely this reason.”

“Rights” don’t enforce themselves even when they’re “guaranteed” in constitutions. The people enforce them. And when happens people in the country who vote don’t believe in it or want to amend it to strip people of their rights?

It’s precisely why gun grabbers are openly bragging about how immigration trends make gun control inevitable at some point. What happens when they constitute a big enough majority to repeal the Second Amendment or simply pass outright gun confiscation laws?

In other words, we could see the same thing that’s happening in South Africa happen in America at some point because of our border/immigration/birthright citizenship policy.

I embrace having borders controlled by the government resemble the private sector borders as much as possible. All private property is controlled by the people who own it and pay for its maintenance. They get to set the rules for who is allowed on it. Some set up barriers to prevent people from entering it without authorization due to property’s use, and can remove people who don’t own that land if they violate those rules.

You can’t have that when you are talking about the State. You don’t own anything the State taxes you for. It’s not private property, in the sense that you are talking about. I prefer the government resemble the dodo bird.

Here is the ugly way it is. Telling the State the way you want it to use “you resources” is like the black slave telling his white master he doesn’t approve of the way the white master is using the money that he got from the cotton the slave picked.

And open border advocates in this analogy would be slaves saying they shouldn’t advocate for better treatment, food, clothing, and housing because “the master is our enemy. Don’t ask them for help.”

Absolutism has its place. All taxation is theft. But taxation that pays for the local road maintenance is a world away from taxation that pays for abortions, foreign aid, and trans-gendered surgeries for illegal aliens.

And open border advocates in this analogy would be slaves saying they shouldn’t advocate for better treatment, food, clothing, and housing because “the master is our enemy. Don’t ask them for help.”
Just as the white master didn’t care, as it was his best interest not too, neither does the State.

And? But, how do you know? I abhor abortion, in my younger days I spent a lot of nights in jail protesting it. I hate foreign aide, and transgender stuff… well you can guess. I hate anything that I am forced to pay for.
But, how do we know, that which is unseen, that the State building roads is a world away from these things?
😉